Further Reading

On Thursday, the company's first quarter earnings report confirmed a grand total of 2.4 million new customers, including 1.3 million traditional, post-paid "subscribers." Those figures outpace the combined subscriber gains from all other American carriers in Q1 combined.

However, that boost didn't prevent the company from suffering another quarterly loss of $151 million. This loss surely includes more factors than reimbursing new customers' early termination fees, as T-Mobile only covers up to $350 under that offer. But in total, T-Mobile reported that roughly 273,000 new customers took advantage of the offer.

The company's revenues jumped more than $2 billion since last quarter, largely thanks to adding MetroPCS sales figures to T-Mobile's total since acquiring the pre-paid mobile provider last May. With MetroPCS figures removed, T-Mobile still raised its revenues by more than $700 million, or 15.3 percent.

T-Mobile CEO John Legere took the opportunity to remind investors that he'd promised change to the "arrogant US wireless industry," though he didn't go so far as to include a vulgarity-laced tirade in the press release or subsequent investor phone call.

Customers are flocking to the company's initiatives like Jump!, making this the carrier's fourth quarter in a row to post customer growth (and this quarter contained its highest combined customer gain ever). That fact could make any upcoming Sprint buy-out attempts all the more lucrative.

I switched to T-Mobile about two months ago and I'm sad to say I may not stay. I like their cheaper prices compared to the utter rip-off everyone else offers, yet I don't like their lack of coverage. That's not to say that I didn't know they had worse coverage, but I don't know if I can keep a phone and a service that has little to zero useful coverage on interstate areas that aren't inside cities. Driving from Atlanta to Orlando I had service, but it didn't really work. My phone indicated that I had a connection, but trying to call someone or send a text was a waste of effort because it simply didn't work. I like paying $40 less for than my old AT&T plan and getting far more for the money in terms of data and minutes, but if I leave Atlanta on a major highway my phone becomes an iPod basically. I understand they have less coverage, and I don't hold that against them too much, but every major interstate highway should be covered 100% no excuses and they really aren't. I won't ever go back to AT&T, but Verizon charges and absurd amount of money so I'm stuck in a loop really. Do I pay a lot less and deal with their spotty coverage, or do I break down and get overcharged for service that works better? I don't really know what I should do.

T-Mobile still wants to sell itself. So it's pumping up their subscriber numbers to make themselves more attractive to a buyer. These kind of losses are going to continue for a while, since it takes a few years for a new customer to actually start making them money, after the initial hole they put themselves in to buy out those contracts.

So don't expect this sort of thing to last, or be the paradigm changing strategy that Legere claims it's supposed to be. They're just burning through money to make prospective buyers look at their subscriber count and want in on that.

We just switched from Verizon to T-Mobile. Verizon was costing us as a family twice as much a month as T-Mobile. No doubt that Verizon has much better coverage, but it's getting hard to afford. T-Mobile is taking advantage of that by making the switch easy.

Reading through a couple of their preceding 10-Q's (which are all available on the SEC's EDGAR database for those interested), it wasn't a great quarter for Tmo. It wasn't even a good quarter, financially.

But it also wasn't a bad one. They took a 151M loss on 6,875M total revenue. That is, they took in 6.875 billion and spent 6,903 billion. Not profitable, but their guidance seems to suggest that paying off ETFs and (even better) constructing new infrastructure are the culprits behind the losses.

I switched to T-Mobile about two months ago and I'm sad to say I may not stay. I like their cheaper prices compared to the utter rip-off everyone else offers, yet I don't like their lack of coverage. That's not to say that I didn't know they had worse coverage, but I don't know if I can keep a phone and a service that has little to zero useful coverage on interstate areas that aren't inside cities. Driving from Atlanta to Orlando I had service, but it didn't really work. My phone indicated that I had a connection, but trying to call someone or send a text was a waste of effort because it simply didn't work. I like paying $40 less for than my old AT&T plan and getting far more for the money in terms of data and minutes, but if I leave Atlanta on a major highway my phone becomes an iPod basically. I understand they have less coverage, and I don't hold that against them too much, but every major interstate highway should be covered 100% no excuses and they really aren't. I won't ever go back to AT&T, but Verizon charges and absurd amount of money so I'm stuck in a loop really. Do I pay a lot less and deal with their spotty coverage, or do I break down and get overcharged for service that works better? I don't really know what I should do.

While T-Mobile coverage isn't top-notch, it's worth noting that antenna quality can vary significantly between phone models. There are also signal boosters that may prove worthwhile given the savings potential long-term.

T-Mobile still wants to sell itself. So it's pumping up their subscriber numbers to make themselves more attractive to a buyer. These kind of losses are going to continue for a while, since it takes a few years for a new customer to actually start making them money, after the initial hole they put themselves in to buy out those contracts.

So don't expect this sort of thing to last, or be the paradigm changing strategy that Legere claims it's supposed to be. They're just burning through money to make prospective buyers look at their subscriber count and want in on that.

I switched to T-Mobile about two months ago and I'm sad to say I may not stay. I like their cheaper prices compared to the utter rip-off everyone else offers, yet I don't like their lack of coverage. That's not to say that I didn't know they had worse coverage, but I don't know if I can keep a phone and a service that has little to zero useful coverage on interstate areas that aren't inside cities. Driving from Atlanta to Orlando I had service, but it didn't really work. My phone indicated that I had a connection, but trying to call someone or send a text was a waste of effort because it simply didn't work. I like paying $40 less for than my old AT&T plan and getting far more for the money in terms of data and minutes, but if I leave Atlanta on a major highway my phone becomes an iPod basically. I understand they have less coverage, and I don't hold that against them too much, but every major interstate highway should be covered 100% no excuses and they really aren't. I won't ever go back to AT&T, but Verizon charges and absurd amount of money so I'm stuck in a loop really. Do I pay a lot less and deal with their spotty coverage, or do I break down and get overcharged for service that works better? I don't really know what I should do.

Same here. I keep having to roam on att with tmobile, and you get no roaming data with their $30 5GB plan.

I switched to aio, because at least the price with their $5 discount isn't bad, $35 for unlimited everything and 500MB of data, with it being throttled after that. I also never go to 2G with them either. Downsides of aio vs att prepaid are speeds are capped at 4mbit for 3G and 8mbit for LTE.

And of course, aio like att, locks their phones they sell. You won't be able to do as you please with their moto g.

While T-Mobile coverage isn't top-notch, it's worth noting that antenna quality can vary significantly between phone models. There are also signal boosters that may prove worthwhile given the savings potential long-term.

Antenna quality plays a minuscule role in current context here. A signal booster helps very little when your carrier offers no service at all in many (highly traveled) places. Mobile signal boosters aren't very good as stationary antennas are at a fixed location (homes/businesses). Plus, T-Mo utilizes a non-standard frequency band allocation in North America, so a lot of the nicer, less expensive SOHO boosters, like some of the Wilson electronics, won't work since they mostly offer 850/1900 and not 1700. T-Mo hasn't re-farmed every region yet AFAIK, so you would be SOL.

I might be interested in T-mobile if they had a tower in my area. But that's apparently a big "if" and the biggest turnoff I hear about. No service in area scares a lot of customers from jumping.

I took a chance. My clients are in well populated ares so I figured I would be OK. My wife is a traveling nurse and has some clients in the boonies, but her company gave her a verizon cell phone, so if she wasn't covered by t-mobile she'd have that.

Backstory out of the way, the coverage has been perfectly acceptable. I've yet to need service and not have it. When I don't have service, it's usually on those back roads to my house (I'm *almost* in the boonies)

Same here. I keep having to roam on att with tmobile, and you get no roaming data with their $30 5GB plan.

I switched to aio, because at least the price with their $5 discount isn't bad, $35 for unlimited everything and 500MB of data, with it being throttled after that. I also never go to 2G with them either. Downsides of aio vs att prepaid are speeds are capped at 4mbit for 3G and 8mbit for LTE.

And of course, aio like att, locks their phones they sell. You won't be able to do as you please with their moto g.

Do I pay a lot less and deal with their spotty coverage, or do I break down and get overcharged for service that works better? I don't really know what I should do.

Think about it this way, would you pay for a car with only two wheels? If you're not paying for something that works, why pay for it?

This also depends on the usage scenario - how often does OP drive from Atlanta to Orlando? If it's infrequent (say once a quarter) then the savings may make it work having a pay-as-you-go phone on ATT or VZW MVNO used just from traveling.

Sort of like deciding whether you need to buy a full size pickup because you carry lumber around frequently, or get a small commuter car and rent a truck when you need it, because you carry lumber 3 or 4 times a year.

This also depends on the usage scenario - how often does OP drive from Atlanta to Orlando? If it's infrequent (say once a quarter) then the savings may make it work having a pay-as-you-go phone on ATT or VZW MVNO used just from traveling.

Sort of like deciding whether you need to buy a full size pickup because you carry lumber around frequently, or get a small commuter car and rent a truck when you need it, because you carry lumber 3 or 4 times a year.

While T-Mobile coverage isn't top-notch, it's worth noting that antenna quality can vary significantly between phone models. There are also signal boosters that may prove worthwhile given the savings potential long-term.

Antenna quality plays a minuscule role in current context here. A signal booster helps very little when your carrier offers no service at all in many (highly traveled) places. Mobile signal boosters aren't very good as stationary antennas are at a fixed location (homes/businesses). Plus, T-Mo utilizes a non-standard frequency band allocation in North America, so a lot of the nicer, less expensive SOHO boosters, like some of the Wilson electronics, won't work since they mostly offer 850/1900 and not 1700. T-Mo hasn't re-farmed every region yet AFAIK, so you would be SOL.

Eventually, I'm going to look like a StraightTalk shill, but I recommend them if your data needs aren't super heavy. I have AT&T coverage with ~T-Mobile monthly bill. I don't really choose.

Their website for controlling/monitoring your plan is rather spartan... but other than that I've had no problems. I bought two Nexus 4s for my wife and I at $250 apiece. We started with T-Mobile SIMs but switched to AT&T once StraightTalk restocked those SIM cards. The quality of my network went up and the price stayed the same.

Throttling starts around the 2G limit. I haven't reached it yet because I have WIFI in most places I use my phone for heavy data use.

While T-Mobile coverage isn't top-notch, it's worth noting that antenna quality can vary significantly between phone models. There are also signal boosters that may prove worthwhile given the savings potential long-term.

Antenna quality plays a minuscule role in current context here. A signal booster helps very little when your carrier offers no service at all in many (highly traveled) places. Mobile signal boosters aren't very good as stationary antennas are at a fixed location (homes/businesses). Plus, T-Mo utilizes a non-standard frequency band allocation in North America, so a lot of the nicer, less expensive SOHO boosters, like some of the Wilson electronics, won't work since they mostly offer 850/1900 and not 1700. T-Mo hasn't re-farmed every region yet AFAIK, so you would be SOL.

I can agree with this, as the Motorola Atrix / Photon 4G has one of the worst wifi antennas I've yet seen in a handheld. WiMax and CDMA were fine. (I'm wondering if they're using the WiMax antenna - which needs to be as optimized as possible - for 2.4GHz wifi too, a job at which it would be less good.)

Do I pay a lot less and deal with their spotty coverage, or do I break down and get overcharged for service that works better? I don't really know what I should do.

I lived with Sprint's crappy coverage in Chicago for a year. Part of it I knew; when I bought my 4G phone they mentioned that their 4G rollout wasn't complete and would be done in "Q4" of 2012. It wasn't, of course. But then I started getting emails talking about their great new network and walking past signs telling me all the cool things I should do with it and I figured, welp, guess they must be done. Suddenly the inability to stream Spotify on my walk from the train station to work was no longer acceptable. And it's not like I was in obscure areas of the city; my train got into Union Station one block from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and one block from the Sears Tower, and my job was located on Michigan Avenue across the river from the Tribune building.

In any event, I switched to T-Mobile and have been extremely happy with their service. Obviously you're experiencing an opposite reaction.

So as to your question, take my advice: If the service doesn't work for you, dump it. If it incurs an ETF, deal with it. You're basically unable to use your service right now and there's nothing about that that's right. If you have to pay more for service you can actually use, you'll still end up happier for it.

I switched to T-Mobile about two months ago and I'm sad to say I may not stay. I like their cheaper prices compared to the utter rip-off everyone else offers, yet I don't like their lack of coverage. That's not to say that I didn't know they had worse coverage, but I don't know if I can keep a phone and a service that has little to zero useful coverage on interstate areas that aren't inside cities. Driving from Atlanta to Orlando I had service, but it didn't really work. My phone indicated that I had a connection, but trying to call someone or send a text was a waste of effort because it simply didn't work. I like paying $40 less for than my old AT&T plan and getting far more for the money in terms of data and minutes, but if I leave Atlanta on a major highway my phone becomes an iPod basically. I understand they have less coverage, and I don't hold that against them too much, but every major interstate highway should be covered 100% no excuses and they really aren't. I won't ever go back to AT&T, but Verizon charges and absurd amount of money so I'm stuck in a loop really. Do I pay a lot less and deal with their spotty coverage, or do I break down and get overcharged for service that works better? I don't really know what I should do.

I don't know how feasible this solution is for you but you might want to look into a pre-paid phone from ATT or Verizon and using the pre-paid phone on your trips down to Orlando.

I'm sure with all these new subscribers, T-Mo is bound to add more coverage to their network.

I do understand your frustration though. I live in So Cal and I usually have good coverage but I took a road trip to Austin, TX last month and I didn't have any coverage 80% of the way there.

TMo offers some great deals and good plans...for some (possibly many) people. It basically comes down to your usage area.

For me, I live in a fairly large metro area so I can get coverage from any of the major 4 carriers. It's a luxury not everyone has but it's worked out great for me. I dealt with Sprint's slower data because I don't need my phone to outpace my home cable connection but they kept adding features I didn't need (read: hundreds and hundreds of voice minutes) and bumping up the cost of their plans. What used to cost $45/mo for unlimited data and a few hundred minutes worked its way up to $70-80/mo for unlimited everything.

I'm mainly a data user with the occasional need to make calls so TMo's $30/mo prepaid for 100 minutes and 5GB (before throttle) of fast data is a perfect fit for me. If I somehow need to make a lot more calls, I can just pay $10 for another chunk of 100 minutes anytime. Since I spend 99% of my time in the city, I can deal with the occasional roaming or lack of service for a few days out of the year. I understand their prioritizing of denser populations since it's the best way to hit the most people with limited (compared to the bastard children of the Baby Bells) resources.

It just sucks if you need coverage all over because all the savings in the world doesn't matter if you can't use the thing. I think their strategy of offering better/cheaper service to mobile city-dwellers is a good one. It's just not the only one.

I switched to T-Mobile about two months ago and I'm sad to say I may not stay. I like their cheaper prices compared to the utter rip-off everyone else offers, yet I don't like their lack of coverage. That's not to say that I didn't know they had worse coverage, but I don't know if I can keep a phone and a service that has little to zero useful coverage on interstate areas that aren't inside cities. Driving from Atlanta to Orlando I had service, but it didn't really work. My phone indicated that I had a connection, but trying to call someone or send a text was a waste of effort because it simply didn't work. I like paying $40 less for than my old AT&T plan and getting far more for the money in terms of data and minutes, but if I leave Atlanta on a major highway my phone becomes an iPod basically. I understand they have less coverage, and I don't hold that against them too much, but every major interstate highway should be covered 100% no excuses and they really aren't. I won't ever go back to AT&T, but Verizon charges and absurd amount of money so I'm stuck in a loop really. Do I pay a lot less and deal with their spotty coverage, or do I break down and get overcharged for service that works better? I don't really know what I should do.

I don't know how feasible this solution is for you but you might want to look into a pre-paid phone from ATT or Verizon and using the pre-paid phone on your trips down to Orlando.

I'm sure with all these new subscribers, T-Mo is bound to add more coverage to their network.

I do understand your frustration though. I live in So Cal and I usually have good coverage but I took a road trip to Austin, TX last month and I didn't have any coverage 80% of the way there.

Now that is the problem with T-Mobile. They don't take rural service seriously. Now AT$T is only marginally better in the cities and 'burbs than T-Mobile. But AT&T is serious about the boonies. I've gone off road and looked at the facilities. LPG generator for power. Big arse microwave for the back haul.

So with AT$T you can go from city to city and have coverage in between , often 4g. Eastern Sierras, Yosemite, etc. These sites are probably money losers by themselves, but they provide an incentive to subscribe to AT$T.

Do I pay a lot less and deal with their spotty coverage, or do I break down and get overcharged for service that works better? I don't really know what I should do.

I lived with Sprint's crappy coverage in Chicago for a year. Part of it I knew; when I bought my 4G phone they mentioned that their 4G rollout wasn't complete and would be done in "Q4" of 2012. It wasn't, of course. But then I started getting emails talking about their great new network and walking past signs telling me all the cool things I should do with it and I figured, welp, guess they must be done. Suddenly the inability to stream Spotify on my walk from the train station to work was no longer acceptable. And it's not like I was in obscure areas of the city; my train got into Union Station one block from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and one block from the Sears Tower, and my job was located on Michigan Avenue across the river from the Tribune building.

In any event, I switched to T-Mobile and have been extremely happy with their service. Obviously you're experiencing an opposite reaction.

So as to your question, take my advice: If the service doesn't work for you, dump it. If it incurs an ETF, deal with it. You're basically unable to use your service right now and there's nothing about that that's right. If you have to pay more for service you can actually use, you'll still end up happier for it.

I've experienced the same feeling. I went from one of Sprint's MVNOs to Prepaid T-Mobile Service and the speeds went up by a factor of 10 (EvDo Rev A/very limited WiMax to LTE/HSPA+). The coverage also improved by about 50%. That said, there are still times when AT&T and VZW have service and I don't, but for the price (I routinely use 3-4 GBs when a travel a lot in a month) and compared to Sprint, I've been very happy.

I switched to T-Mobile about two months ago and I'm sad to say I may not stay. I like their cheaper prices compared to the utter rip-off everyone else offers, yet I don't like their lack of coverage. That's not to say that I didn't know they had worse coverage, but I don't know if I can keep a phone and a service that has little to zero useful coverage on interstate areas that aren't inside cities. Driving from Atlanta to Orlando I had service, but it didn't really work. My phone indicated that I had a connection, but trying to call someone or send a text was a waste of effort because it simply didn't work. I like paying $40 less for than my old AT&T plan and getting far more for the money in terms of data and minutes, but if I leave Atlanta on a major highway my phone becomes an iPod basically. I understand they have less coverage, and I don't hold that against them too much, but every major interstate highway should be covered 100% no excuses and they really aren't. I won't ever go back to AT&T, but Verizon charges and absurd amount of money so I'm stuck in a loop really. Do I pay a lot less and deal with their spotty coverage, or do I break down and get overcharged for service that works better? I don't really know what I should do.

While T-Mobile coverage isn't top-notch, it's worth noting that antenna quality can vary significantly between phone models. There are also signal boosters that may prove worthwhile given the savings potential long-term.

I switched from AT&T to T-Mobile and on both plans I had a 5S (both brand new and T-Mobile bought out my contract). The difference is night and day. When driving down I-16 to Savannah I had five bars of useable 4G, with the T-Mobile 5S I had two to three bars of GPRS. T-Mobile is clearly the problem because everywhere I had LTE with AT&T (or at least 4G) I've had either EDGE or GPRS with T-Mobile. Even though I had a connection with T-Mobile, according to the phone anyway, it literally would not work. I'd make a call and it would be garbled and immediately drop. With AT&T I didn't have that issue. I'm not really willing to switch to Android of Windows Phone because I really like iOS and the iPhone and I've got a lot of money in apps for that platform. I don't mind being locked into the platform either and that's not really the issue anyway. My biggest problem is that it appears that T-Mobile can't even cover the basics like freeways with useable coverage. My parents are in Disneyworld right now and they can barely send and receive texts, phone calls are almost out of the question. I like my lower bill, but I don't like the lack of coverage. I knew it wasn't as good, but I didn't think it would be that bad. I can tolerate it to a degree, but the more places I go and travel it's actually becoming a problem I'm thinking I can't deal with.

Do I pay a lot less and deal with their spotty coverage, or do I break down and get overcharged for service that works better? I don't really know what I should do.

Think about it this way, would you pay for a car with only two wheels? If you're not paying for something that works, why pay for it?

Because I like paying $70 for unlimited everything rather than $150 for an equivalent plan. Should their competitor even offer it. It works 90% of the time I need it to, it's the other 10% that really grates on my nerves. I'm dealing with it for now, but I don't know how long I can brush aside it being sub-par. Hopefully when I move in the next six months or so my service will improve, but if it doesn't then I will for sure sign up with someone else.

Do I pay a lot less and deal with their spotty coverage, or do I break down and get overcharged for service that works better? I don't really know what I should do.

Think about it this way, would you pay for a car with only two wheels? If you're not paying for something that works, why pay for it?

This also depends on the usage scenario - how often does OP drive from Atlanta to Orlando? If it's infrequent (say once a quarter) then the savings may make it work having a pay-as-you-go phone on ATT or VZW MVNO used just from traveling.

Sort of like deciding whether you need to buy a full size pickup because you carry lumber around frequently, or get a small commuter car and rent a truck when you need it, because you carry lumber 3 or 4 times a year.

I don't do it often, but I may be moving into that area in the next 6 months (hopefully!) and the service down there is okay, but even between those cities it can be real spotty. Also, I bought a truck 10 years ago because I needed one, and now that I don't it annoys me because I have no other car and I don't want to sell it because it's been paid of for 5 years or so. I don't really need that highway coverage, but knowing that I won't have it should I need it is not a feeling I particularly like. I feel a bit swindled to be honest. Covering major highways should be a requirement in my eyes. How hard can it possibly be to cover a major interstate sufficiently that I can actually make a phone call. Can't be that hard. I don't even care about data either, I just want to be able to contact the outside world should I need to.

So as to your question, take my advice: If the service doesn't work for you, dump it. If it incurs an ETF, deal with it. You're basically unable to use your service right now and there's nothing about that that's right. If you have to pay more for service you can actually use, you'll still end up happier for it.

90% of the time it's fine. I get a bit slower data is a few area of Atlanta, but for the most part it works just fine. I feel like a real asshole because I convinced my parents to drop their crazy expensive AT&T plan for the one I'm on and while they pay about $15 less a month for way more, they didn't even have data!, my mom gets literally no service at work and my Dad is always complaining about poor voice quality and dropped calls at home. Verizon works a treat where she works because they've got a deal with the company, so you can't really hold that over T-Mobiles head necessarily, but as soon as she hits the threshold of the doorway she goes from 3-5 bars LTE to no service. She HATES it for that reason alone and now that she's in Disneyworld right now and can't get good service she's been giving me and earful all this week haha. I would like to switch to Verizon because I've never been anywhere they didn't have really good coverage, but I don't want to pay as much as they charge for their service compared to what you actually get. They have good coverage, but their prices are absolutely outrageous. That and my unlocked 5S won't work on their network should I switch. Which is bullshit.

Now that is the problem with T-Mobile. They don't take rural service seriously. Now AT$T is only marginally better in the cities and 'burbs than T-Mobile. But AT&T is serious about the boonies. I've gone off road and looked at the facilities. LPG generator for power. Big arse microwave for the back haul.

So with AT$T you can go from city to city and have coverage in between , often 4g. Eastern Sierras, Yosemite, etc. These sites are probably money losers by themselves, but they provide an incentive to subscribe to AT$T.

AT&T is way, way, WAY better here in Atlanta than T-Mobile is. I live inside the Perimeter and I never went anywhere in Atlanta that didn't have either full speed LTE or full speed 4G service. I got easily double the LTE speed on AT&T than I do now on T-Mobile and they provide far better coverage. I'm sitting in my room right now and I've got one bar of LTE on my T-Mobile 5s. With my old AT&T 5S I'd have five bars LTE and 40mbps download speeds. I was really impressed that AT&T had such good coverage outside cities and on remote stretches of freeway. Last time I went to South Carolina a few months back I had five bars of 4G that was very useable. I could talk text and use my GPS/traffic app without a single issue. I use Road Ninja on my phone for when I take trips like that and with T-Mobile is simply doesn't work. There's no data coverage for it to connect to and my mapping/GPS/traffic apps simply don't function. I miss that part of AT&T, but I don't miss that bill!

Now that is the problem with T-Mobile. They don't take rural service seriously. Now AT$T is only marginally better in the cities and 'burbs than T-Mobile. But AT&T is serious about the boonies. I've gone off road and looked at the facilities. LPG generator for power. Big arse microwave for the back haul.

So with AT$T you can go from city to city and have coverage in between , often 4g. Eastern Sierras, Yosemite, etc. These sites are probably money losers by themselves, but they provide an incentive to subscribe to AT$T.

AT&T is way, way, WAY better here in Atlanta than T-Mobile is. I live inside the Perimeter and I never went anywhere in Atlanta that didn't have either full speed LTE or full speed 4G service. I got easily double the LTE speed on AT&T than I do now on T-Mobile and they provide far better coverage. I'm sitting in my room right now and I've got one bar of LTE on my T-Mobile 5s. With my old AT&T 5S I'd have five bars LTE and 40mbps download speeds. I was really impressed that AT&T had such good coverage outside cities and on remote stretches of freeway. Last time I went to South Carolina a few months back I had five bars of 4G that was very useable. I could talk text and use my GPS/traffic app without a single issue. I use Road Ninja on my phone for when I take trips like that and with T-Mobile is simply doesn't work. There's no data coverage for it to connect to and my mapping/GPS/traffic apps simply don't function. I miss that part of AT&T, but I don't miss that bill!

I have no complaints about T-Mobile LTE speed. About 25 mbps down and 12mbps up.

But in the boonies, you use T-Mobile roaming partners, often EDGE at best. If the interwebs wasn't full of ads and useless graphics, EDGE might be tolerable. But that isn't web 2.5 or whatever we call it today.

Now T-Mobile says they are going to convert about half of their EDGE sites to LTE by IIRC the end of 2015. But that will do nothing for the roaming partners.

TMobile LTE is plenty strong in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I just see no suitable buyer for T-Mobile. What would really help is more T-mobile doing more roaming on AT$T in these locations where T-Mobile will never build a site.

I just see no suitable buyer for T-Mobile. What would really help is more T-mobile doing more roaming on AT$T in these locations where T-Mobile will never build a site.

Agreed. I really wish they'd hook up with AT&T and rent tower space from them, but that'll never happen after AT&T didn't get to buy them. It would be SO much better if they could use AT&T towers on the interstates at the least. Filling in the gaps would be a dream because when you hit an area with poor service, it's always at the worst time possible.

This may be seen as another effect of the subside-and-lock US phone market model: it is very expensive to switch operators, usually for costumers and, in this case, for T-Mobile.

Having the phone locked and subsidized contracts allow most costumers to only envision switching company once every two years, and for a very narrow window, as not taking advantage of the subside seems wasteful.

So, subside is not paid only in the form of increased price plans, but mainly by weakening competition: as most users at any given time won't be willing to switch companies, costumer base is captive, the churn rate is kept low and there's little incentive to offer cheaper plans.

So, what T-Mobile is paying is actually the cost of breaking this logic for its own good. Hope it works.

I just see no suitable buyer for T-Mobile. What would really help is more T-mobile doing more roaming on AT$T in these locations where T-Mobile will never build a site.

Agreed. I really wish they'd hook up with AT&T and rent tower space from them, but that'll never happen after AT&T didn't get to buy them. It would be SO much better if they could use AT&T towers on the interstates at the least. Filling in the gaps would be a dream because when you hit an area with poor service, it's always at the worst time possible.

They been sharing towers for a long time. I roamed on att even with pre paid for voice access. No data of course with my $30 plan.